Standing Committee G

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

David Amess: Order. I am delighted that we have moved to another Room, but there seem to be a number of teething problems. Apparently, everything will be put right by the afternoon. Hon. Members will have seen that, because of the heavy Committee work load, the Official Report for the afternoon sitting of Tuesday 14 January will not be available until later today. The Editor of Hansard apologises for that.
 I also have to announce that because of an error at the press, amendments Nos. 336 to 351 in the name of Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown appeared twice in the papers issued yesterday. The duplicates have now been deleted.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I am grateful for that clarification; we thought that you might be allowing us to debate everything twice.

David Amess: That is wishful thinking, and the Chair will not allow it.Clause 14 Local development scheme

Clause 14 - Local development scheme

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 228, in
clause 14, page 8, line 35, at end insert
'within 8 weeks of receipt of the scheme'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 126, in 
clause 14, page 8, line 36, after 'direction', insert
'can only be made after a period of 12 months has elapsed following the issuing of a draft direction and after all representations from the local planning authority, other interested parties and the general public have been fully considered at a public enquiry and'.
 Amendment No.127, in 
clause 14, page 8, line 43, at end insert—
'(d) a timetable for preparing the scheme.'.

Matthew Green: Amendment No. 228 seeks to ensure that the preparation by a local authority of a local development scheme is not delayed because the authority has to wait for the Secretary of State to decide whether to issue a direction to make appropriate amendments to the scheme. I am sure that the Secretary of State has no intention of ever causing a delay, but we want to include such an assurance.
 There are areas in which the Government have imposed time limits on themselves. The Bill introduces a timetable for decisions by the Secretary of State in relation to appeals against decisions on planning applications and the failure of the planning 
 authorities to take decisions. That is in schedule 2. The idea behind the amendment is that the Government's intention should apply when the Secretary of State is considering whether to direct a planning authority to make changes to its local development scheme. Otherwise, the process will be left in limbo while the authority waits to hear whether it may proceed or whether it must make changes. The amendment is straightforward. 
 I shall leave the Conservatives to speak to the other two amendments, which are essentially about timing. The purpose of the substantive amendment is to set the Minister a time limit. He might say that eight weeks is not right, and the limit should be 10 or 12 weeks—or even, dare we hope, six weeks. We would welcome an indication [Interruption.]. The Minister is going to disappoint me again, I can see. There was I, thinking that this was a new day, a new dawn—

Tony McNulty: A new shirt.

Matthew Green: Yes, a new shirt.
 I think that I shall leave my argument there.

David Wilshire: All I shall say is that the principle argued by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) has my support. The other two amendments would do the same thing. I echo what he has said in that the choice of time limit in amendment No. 126 is, in a sense, arbitrary. I opted for a certain period, and am happy for the Minister to say that he agrees in principle but does not like the period that I have chosen. I shall not go to the stake over it. In my experience, all of our mailbags from time to time contain letters complaining bitterly about the length of time any part of the planning process will take. My experience of the terminal 5 inquiry leads me to conclude that never again should we allow a part of the planning process to have no time limit.
 There will always be those who seek to exploit the system to grind things to a standstill and prevent a decision of any sort being taken. At the end of such processes, there comes a point when even the people who were against the plan would rather have a decision in favour than just go on and on with no decision at all. Battle fatigue sets in and the time scale is dreadful. Every time I noted an open-ended system in the Bill, I was tempted to table an amendment stating that there should be a time scale of some sort. Therefore, I support in principle what the hon. Member for Ludlow says. 
 My amendments are slightly different. Amendment No. 126 follows on from clause 14(4): 
''The Secretary of State may direct the local planning authority to make such amendments to the scheme as he thinks appropriate.''
 Subsection (5) states: 
''Such a direction must contain the Secretary of State's reasons for giving it.''
 That has to be right. Amendment No. 126 would ensure that the Secretary of State does not arbitrarily give direction to make such amendments as he thinks fit, and then not explain why. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to say, ''I am minded to 
 instruct you to do this for the following reasons.'' There would then be a period during which public discussion about his amendments could take place. He would have to make the amendments in draft. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so I care not about the niceties of my wording. 
 In principle, there must be a period after the Secretary of State has decided something should be amended. Instead of simply saying, ''amend it'', the Secretary of State must say, ''I am going to make you do this, but we are going to consult on it first.'' In my amendment, that consultation period is 12 months, but it could be 12 weeks for all it matters. There are two principles behind the amendment. First, there must be some consultation on a direction before it is made, and secondly that period of consultation must be strictly time limited. Amendment No. 126 would ensure that, and if the Minister wants to accept the spirit and the principle of it, I would be delighted with a better wording than the one I have chosen. 
 Amendment No. 127 would amend subsection (7). The amendment states that the Secretary of State ''may'' set down a timetable. On reflection, if I were able to table it again, I would suggest that he ''must'' do so. I hope that the Minister accepts that the principle is right. There should be some means of saying how long the process will take, and some method of enforcing the time limit. 
 I return to the terminal 5 example. There was a lot of exhortation to resolve the matter, but there was no timetable. I am sure that at some later point we will discuss whether one can impose timetables. It is perfectly possible to do so because in my experience as a chairman of a planning committee involved in planning appeals, and of being an MP, there rapidly comes a point where objectors become repetitive. After the first 20 per cent. of the time taken by the inquiry, nothing new is produced, but the system goes on and on. I see no reason why we should not have a timetable. If the Minister likes the idea of amendment No. 127, but not the wording, I am not going to the stake over that either.

Paul Beresford: This is the first time that I have had the delight of being on a Committee that you are chairing, Mr. Amess. I have noticed that you have the ability to look interested in our speeches; I do not know whether that is the reality. I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has been delayed because of a funeral; he will be here as soon as possible. Today will be lighter because I will spend a lot of time moving cobwebs and trying to get up to speed. I will be using my hon. Friend's notes, and his handwriting is difficult to read—my own is appalling—so the result will be rather intriguing.
 I support the amendments, but perhaps from a slightly different angle from my hon. Friend. It is already apparent that local authorities are sitting on their hands and that really concerns me. According to the private building sector, many local authorities that are agin development are waiting to see what comes up. The private building sector especially hates delay, 
 as do the Minister, his colleagues, and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister. The number of private house-building starts was appallingly low last year and it is not likely to be any better in the coming year. That trend is likely to progress and the Minister should support anything that we can do to speed everything up. 
 The local development documents are a key part of the clause. That seems straightforward until one turns to clause 22, which we will not be able to discuss because the guillotine will come down with a clang and we will all go home, leaving a good amount of the Bill untouched. Clause 22(2) and (3) make it clear that above all the local authorities is the Secretary of State's inspector. There are two problems with the Secretary of State's inspector. First, he will add to the delay and secondly—this is not strictly relevant, but I hope that a little leeway will be allowed—he will be able to dictate to local authorities. If the Secretary of State's inspector comes up with an arrangement that is not acceptable to the local authority, bearing in mind that the local authority knows its own conditions, position, and local demands, it can reject the inspector's decision, although that is rare. The difficulty with the proposals is that the local authority will have to do what a remote individual dictates. That overrides democracy. I hope that the Minister will give us his reaction because I would love to know his justification. If the amendments are not agreed, it would be sensible for the Minister to accept the principle behind them and to make a change somewhere in the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: I too support all three amendments, not least amendment No. 228, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is echoing an amendment put to me by the Law Society, so he has the legal establishment on his side, as well as Conservative Members of Parliament.
 The Government have imposed timetables on themselves in relation to certain town and country planning matters. That is welcome for the reasons that my hon. Friends gave. There are good precedents for that, and eight weeks is the right period. If an applicant submits a planning application to his local planning authority and eight weeks pass, he may deem that it is undetermined or that it has not been accepted and he can start the process of appealing to the Secretary of State. If I were a planning consultant, I would not advise an applicant to follow that course because an appeal to the Secretary of State can take many months. However, since the great Town and Country Planning Act 1947, it has been written into law that after an eight-week period, the applicant may conclude that the non-decision can be appealed against. 
 Then we have another example. I do not want to bore the Committee, but it is important to remember this one. If a planning application is turned down, the applicant has six months to decide whether to appeal against the decision. I believe that that could be reduced from six months to three without any problem. Let us remember that the main objective of the Bill is to speed up the planning system. Therefore, 
 it is good that amendment No. 228 would insert a time limit of eight weeks. Schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State the right to impose timetables on various parts of what is proposed in the Bill. 
 I welcome the amendment and hope that the Minister, who I know is generous, will look favourably on it. It will be good for the Government, because it will show that they are serious about ensuring that they play their part in speeding up the planning process, provided that the quality of decisions or the fairness of the system are not affected. To impose the timetable in that way and for that reason would be welcome.

Tony McNulty: I fully accept the reasons why the hon. Member for Cotswold is not here. He had the courtesy to write informing me that he would be absent, for which I am grateful. I am also extremely grateful that the hon. Member for Ludlow has toned his shirt down, so that we do not have to endure the purple of previous occasions.
 As hon. Members have said, amendment No. 228 would require the Secretary of State to make any direction requiring a local authority to modify its local development scheme within eight weeks of receiving the scheme. I think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne was being modest as amendment No. 126 would radically curtail the Secretary of State's power to direct a local planning authority to amend its LDS, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. Amendment No. 127 would add an explicit provision for the Secretary of State to prescribe the timetable for preparing the LDS. 
 As I have explained, the LDS is essentially a project plan. It will set out what local development documents the local planning authority proposes to prepare and what they will cover, in both subject matter and area, and which documents the local planning authority proposes should be development plan documents and which should not. The LDS will also say whether any document is to be prepared jointly with another planning or other authority and will set out the planned timetable for that. The LDS is central to tackling the real problems caused by the current system, which takes more than five years—sometimes as many as 10—to put a plan in place. 
 We must face the possibility that some local authorities—perish the thought—will propose inadequate local development documents or an unacceptably slow timetable for preparing them. It may help the Committee if I give an example. One document to be included in the LDS is the authority's statement of community involvement, which I hope we shall discuss later. We all want authorities to put their statement of community involvement in place as soon as possible, but we must be able to safeguard local communities in the event that any authority decided to drag its heels in getting its statement ready. 
 I assure the Committee that the power to direct changes to an authority's LDS would be used only as a last resort. The local planning authority will need to hold discussions on the draft scheme with the relevant Government office at an early stage. Where there are problems—for example if the timetable were 
 unjustifiably slow—we would expect them to be resolved without having to use the last resort of a direction.

Paul Beresford: I am afraid that the Minister's speed-reading of his briefs is causing me increasing concern, because hundreds of local authorities throughout the country will refer to the various Government offices, and the offices will refer back to Ministers. The whole timetable has suddenly started to look longer and longer. Can the Minister give us some idea what he expects that timetable to be? In what sort of detail will the Department consider the schemes, and how long does he think they will take to come back? Can local authorities assume, when they have submitted a scheme, that if there is no response after a certain time it has been confirmed, or do they have to sit and wait for a reaction?

Tony McNulty: As I shall go on to say, much of that will be dealt with in regulations. I face a dilemma: I am extremely comfortable with the guillotine, but I am very much of the idea that parliamentary scrutiny is first and foremost the domain of the Opposition rather than the Government. If I slow down considerably, I do not want to be accused of somehow delaying Committee proceedings all the more. Therefore, hon. Members will have to endure what I do not think of as unnecessary speed-reading. Opposition Members might wave if they want me to slow down, and I shall be more than happy to.

Paul Beresford: It is like going to the dentist.

Tony McNulty: I shall not refer to dentists at all. That would be an unnecessary attack on people's present or previous occupations
 If the scheme submitted by the local authority were unsatisfactory in some way, the first step would be discussions with the authority on what changes were necessary to remedy its deficiencies. Much of that already prevails in the course of the development and discussion of assorted plans. 
 The underlying aim would be to conclude such discussions as quickly as possible, but it might take longer than eight weeks. Opposition Members were at least honest enough to admit that the proposed limit was completely arbitrary. I am told that they were not terribly fussed as to whether it was six, eight or 10 weeks. It is not terribly helpful to say that just because the determination period for planning applications is eight weeks, eight weeks is appropriate. I do not follow that argument at all.

Matthew Green: The point is not that eight weeks should be specified but the principle that there should be some limit. For the purpose of probing, we specified eight weeks, but it could be 10 or 12. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what he thinks is a reasonable time frame and table an amendment to deal with it.

Tony McNulty: I shall come to that point in a moment.
 One needs to turn the question around and ask what the purpose would be of building into the Bill a delay for the Secretary of State. We want such matters to be concluded as quickly as possible but, as I said, it 
 may take longer than eight weeks. The amendment would not be in anyone's interest. 
 An unintended or unforeseen consequence of being locked into an eight-week period could be to make it more likely that the Secretary of State would intervene. That would happen if discussions with the authority, however well they were going, had not reached a satisfactory conclusion within the eight-week period but the Department felt that it had to intervene and direct—that would be their only chance to do it—rather than simply continue with the more informal route. 
 It would benefit no one if the process of settling a local planning authority's LDS were to drag on. The Committee will recall that one of the main purposes of the scheme is to help speed up the unacceptably slow process of plan making. I am grateful that the amendment seeks to do that, but my fear is that it will not have that effect. We have constantly said that speed plus quality and efficiency is the real goal of the Bill, not simply speed. The artificial deadline that the amendment would create would not be acceptable. 
 Equally, we do not accept amendment No. 126. The Secretary of State may wish to discuss with interested parties the changes that should be made to the scheme, but it would be completely ridiculous to require 12 months to elapse and a full public inquiry to be held into what is essentially a project plan. 
 Amendment No. 127 is unnecessary because regulations are already provided for under clause 14(3)(b), which deals with the time at which the scheme must be submitted to the Secretary of State. 
 On the timetable for preparing the scheme, one option may be to prescribe that each local authority must have submitted a scheme to the Secretary of State within six months of commencement of part 2. We will consult widely on that and other issues that will be dealt with in regulations later in the year. There must be some time limit but, as with many such matters, it would be more appropriately put in regulations than in the Bill.

Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for that explanation, but he sat down before he answered some of the questions.
 The Minister has put a timetable on local authorities, which are used to working to timetables on, for example, their budgets. Even if they were assured when they submitted their plans that they would get an indication of the timetable and whether it was likely to change, clearly, a Minister or the Secretary of State could have given those indications in the preliminary discussions, which the Minister has assured us will take place. Will he indicate what timetable he anticipates because there is a great concern that hundreds of local authorities will put in plans? 
 Unless the Minister is going to bring in the private sector to help his Department to look at the plans, its staffing level and costs will go sky-high. Local 
 authorities will need an indication in order to keep to their timetables.

Tony McNulty: I accept some of elements of those points. I do not necessarily accept the point about staffing because, as with the discussion and deliberations on regional planning guidance, much of the work is done by people in Government offices who are well placed and in situ. I suspect that the timetables will depend on the issues, and asking about them is like asking how long is a piece of string. I hope that the plans can be turned round in three to four weeks, but it will depend on the quality and substance in the local development scheme provided.
 As I have said, there will be a period in which local authorities will discuss the draft schemes with Government offices, which will cover the timetable as well as the content. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is determined to turn round as rapidly as possible ministerial interventions such as call-ins.

Paul Beresford: I always want to be helpful. Surely the Minister agrees that, in the majority of cases, he is unlikely to call in or have important discussions, particularly if the preliminary discussions have been dealt with. Like the article 14 approach, it would be reasonable to write to local authorities to say that their plans are unlikely to be called in if they have not heard from him within a certain period of time. That would free the majority of local authorities to get on with planning and working with applications under the new scheme.

Tony McNulty: I am not entirely sure about the detail and substantial parts of the process, but what will prevail will not be terribly different from what the hon. Gentleman has described. All schemes must be sent in draft to the Secretary of State, and it would not be terribly useful on the part of the Department if there were not the informal feedback and engagement about which the hon. Gentleman has talked. Prescribing that within definitive time limits and going on to define the process in the Bill would not be terribly helpful, and I can assure him that the overall timetables will be a feature of the regulations after commencement of part 2.
 We have already dealt with much of the meat of the amendments, but it is more appropriate to deal with those issues by the flexible route of regulations rather than in the Bill, given that we are entirely unaware of the scope or substance needed to deal with local development schemes that fall down, are inappropriate or need a lot more work. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, much of which we hope will be dealt with at the informal stage, in which indications can be given both ways. In those circumstances, we did not think it appropriate to include those sorts of time limits in the Bill, and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire: As the Minister will have expected, I found his response fascinatingly unhelpful. He says that the whole purpose of the Bill is to speed up the process but our amendments are wrong because they will speed up the process, which is a curious argument.
 The Minister also advanced the argument that speeding up the process will be better done by 
 regulation. At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to be a recurrent theme of the Bill, and of many others produced by the Government, that things are better done by regulation rather than legislation. The objection to that is quite straightforward: it avoids parliamentary scrutiny. When one does not trust the Government to do what is in the best interests of the British people, one is not in favour—at least, I am not—of giving them even more power to do as they like. 
 I am grateful to the Minister for one thing. By way of objection to amendment No. 126, he said that it would radically curtail the powers of the Secretary of State.

Tony McNulty: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would like that.

David Wilshire: I have to admit to a failure. When I tabled the amendment, it had not occurred to me that it would radically curtail those powers. The Minister has advanced the best possible argument in favour of my amendment. My arguments were are important, and he has sealed the case in favour of them. I am sure, however, that that will not be a reason for him to vote for the amendment.
 The Minister said something else right and perceptive—that it is the Opposition's role to scrutinise. I notice that, thus far, the Committee has not been graced with a speech from Government Back Benchers, if I remember rightly.

Paul Beresford: They are writing next year's Christmas cards.

David Wilshire: Quite. It is perfectly clear that the only scrutiny that this Bill will get will be from the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
 I shall leave the hon. Member for Ludlow to respond on his amendment. On amendment No. 126, I can readily accept various points about drafting. In view of the explanation that has been given, I can accept that a public inquiry would be a cumbersome addition to the process. What concerns me, however, is that that is the only argument that the Minister used against the amendment. I began by saying that I was not wedded to the wording. Saying that the part of the amendment that proposes a public inquiry is wrong does not negate the amendment's principle. I will willingly lose the public inquiry.

Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will find in clause 22(2) and (3) that even if there is not a public inquiry, a lone civil servant inspector inquiry is already in the Bill.

David Wilshire: Yes. Trying to produce an argument against amendment No. 126, the Minister said that there would be consultation. If that is the case, and the Minister wants it, what is wrong in principle with an amendment that requires consultation? When trying to dismiss the amendment, the Minister was, in a sense, accepting its principles bit by bit. Yet he was not prepared to say that something could be gained by accepting its principles and rewording it to the draftsman's satisfaction.
 I can accept another of the Minister's points on detail. He rightly said that such schemes could take 
 five to 10 years to prepare and the Secretary of State might wish to intervene because proposals are inadequate or because the local authority is too slow. I can accept as a detailed argument against amendment No. 126 that there is a distinction between ''inadequate'' and ''too slow''. If intervention occurs because someone is too slow, and the system requires consultation on that, we will have played straight into the hands of the people who are not acting quickly enough, by making the process even longer. I can accept that, but it does not argue against the amendment's principle. It would be perfectly possible for parliamentary draftsmen to find a form of words to enable the amendment to say that if the reason for intervention were that the plan was inadequate, there must be consultation. 
 I accept that there should not be consultation if the reason for intervention is that the process has taken too long. I know that the amendment's details need to be thought through, but the Minister has not yet, to my satisfaction, advanced an argument against the principle of putting such requirements into the Bill. He has said only that he would prefer to do that by regulation. I have shown why that is wrong. If his only reason for objecting to the spirit of amendments Nos. 126 and 127, let alone the amendment of the hon. Member for Ludlow, is that he prefers to make such provisions by diktat not democracy, that is not sufficient to oppose the amendments.

Matthew Green: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, which was rather confusing, really. He said that one effect of amendment No. 228 was that it would create delay by having a maximum time limit, which is interesting. There is an argument against maximum time limits for almost any case in any Bill. The Minister also contended that it might encourage intervention by the Secretary of State. Whether or not it does that, it is probably a matter of whether the actual time period is right. What we would not want is endless discussion between the local authority and the Government office, and through the Government office the Minister. That is not in anyone's interest.
 The Minister said ''Leave it up to me. I'll know when to intervene. Don't put in a timetable.'' I am sure that the current Minister will be very good at doing that, but we have to ensure that we create a system that does not rely on individuals being in post. People can change over time, and we have to create a situation that will ensure that the process works and works on a reasonable timetable, and that there is a degree of certainty in the process. 
 The problem without some sort of timetable is that the local authorities are to some extent left in limbo, at the point where they are waiting for a decision by a Secretary of State. Therefore, it is in a sense only fair that the Secretary of State, while demanding certain timetables of local authorities, is prepared to adhere to timetables himself. 
 I have not been convinced by the Minister's responses, and I encourage members of the Committee to support amendment No. 228. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 128,
in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert— 
 'not later than 5 years after the formal approval of a scheme.'
 I shall not detain the Committee long, as the amendment goes over much the same ground as previous ones, but in a slightly different context. 
 Subsection (8) provides that 
''The local planning authority must revise their local development scheme—
(a) at such time as they consider appropriate;
(b) when directed to do so by the Secretary of State.''
 My hunch is that we shall have a bit of a rerun of the ''We'll do all this by regulation nonsense''. But let us hear what the Minister has to say. In the previous debate, he said that he was unhappy, because plans were taking five to 10 years to produce. I support him in that, in that if the plans are to have a real, practical use, they are needed as quickly as possible, and that sort of time scale will not be helpful. But circumstances change quickly these days—indeed, I think, at a faster rate as time goes by. Therefore, it seems to me that the same arguments can be applied. I accept that we want to do something about councils that are being too slow. If five to 10 years is too long for the plan to be developed, a period of more than five years before it is revised would also be too long, as the Minister said. 
 As I listened to the previous debate, I concluded that when we came to amendment No. 128 the Minister would leap up and say that we did not need to discuss it because he would accept it. However, he has not done so and I suspect that when he has done a little speed reading he will adduce an argument against even this attempt to introduce a timetable. It might just speed things up and although he says he wants to speed things up, he does not. I think that we shall have the same argument all over again. If a plan is to be any good, it must be kept up to date and be relevant to changing circumstances. 
 In the past, I have plucked figures from the air and said that I did not really mind what they were, but on this occasion five years seems a reasonable period after which there should be a review if circumstances have not forced one sooner. If the Minister wants to say that the situation should be kept under review every two years, I would listen to his argument and might be prepared to change the amendment, but if he accepts no time limit other than that dictated by the Secretary of State's, I cannot accept such an argument. I can accept an argument that sets a different period, but 
 surely there must be a cut-off point beyond which no one is allowed to drag their feet.

Sydney Chapman: I fully support my hon. Friend on amendment No. 128 and, although we have moved on, I must express disappointment at the Minister's reaction to the previous amendment. For clarification, I gave two examples of eight weeks and six months for an applicant to decide not to appeal. My hon. Friend was on to a good point in suggesting five years because that is the period after which local planning authorities feel they should revisit their existing unitary development plans. Local development frameworks will supersede unitary plans and so on.
 I want to make a slight revision, although I cannot do so formally. It might have been more appropriate for the amendment to require the local planning authority to revise its local development scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State—presumably revisions must go to the Secretary of State—within five years of the original scheme or previous scheme being approved. That would provide a definitive period. Otherwise, the local authority, new regional planning board or local planning authority would have to start the process well before the five-year period was up. 
 That would be a nice amendment to my hon. Friend's amendment, but he is on to a very good point. I am disappointed that the Minister turned down the suggestion in the previous group of amendments of putting fixed periods in the Bill, especially when I welcome the Government's decision to impose timetables elsewhere on the Secretary of State. I particularly draw the Minister's attention to the meaning and words in schedule 2.

Tony McNulty: Much of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) has just said goes to the heart of the flaws and failures of the amendment. There are two key elements. The first is the notion of reciprocity. Leaving a restriction on the Secretary of State without a commensurate duty for local planning authorities at least to begin the process of revision within the five-year period is not acceptable. It is not acceptable also because there is no subsequent escape route. A local authority could keep its head down for five years and submit nothing for the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman. There would be no recourse for the Secretary of State in any way, shape or form under the amendment.
 The Secretary of State's power to intervene will be exercised only, as half alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, when the local authority fails to revise its local development scheme, which is no small matter and is one of the troublesome elements of the unitary development plan system. Clause 18 subsequently makes it clear that local development documents must be prepared in accordance with the local development scheme, so an out-of-date scheme could mean that local development documents are also not being prepared as necessary, which is also unacceptable. 
 In the new system, schemes should be kept under constant review, and it is likely that revisions will 
 happen far more often than they do currently. I would expect, in some cases at least, some annual review or revision. That would clearly depend on the complexity of a particular area and the way in which it was developing. I accept what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about the five-year limit's being not necessarily appropriate, and that he would not die in the ditch over it, but given the overall sweep of the new system, restricting the Secretary of State, as amendment No. 128 would do, is inappropriate and would not achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants. The Bill does that better as it is. 
 One key flaw of the amendment is that the Secretary of State would have nowhere else to go. If he did not issue a direction within a set period, there would be no mechanism by which the local authority could be compelled to revise its scheme. As constant revision, responsiveness and flexibility are at the heart of the new planning framework, that would undermine the whole approach. The local planning authority must also submit an annual report on the scheme's operation, as we will see when we reach clause 34, so we will know whether the scheme is up to date. As the amendment's starting point is to secure revision within five years, we do not think that that is acceptable and it would not necessarily achieve the hon. Gentleman's aims for the reasons that I have outlined. The point is covered elsewhere, so I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

David Wilshire: This is becoming a curious morning. On two occasions, the Minister has attacked an amendment's detail, even though I had said that I accepted some of his arguments. The same is true again here, and some of the Minister's comments on the detail of amendment No. 128 need to be considered. It is curious that in both cases he has responded by saying that the principle is good but attacking the detail and urging the Committee to vote against the amendment. I have tried to make it clear on both occasions that I am not deeply wedded to the wording, so if the detail is wrong but what we are trying to achieve is correct, it baffles me why the Minister is not saying that the Committee is on to something and he wants to see whether there is a better way of working before he comes back to the point on Report. Instead, he says that we must turn the principle down because the detail is wrong.
 On this occasion, the Minister might have misunderstood what we are debating. He said that the amendment would restrict the Secretary of State. I know why he does not want in principle to restrict the Secretary of State and why he is in favour of giving the Secretary of State as many dictatorial powers as he possibly can. I make no apologies for seeking to restrict the Secretary of State but I am blowed if I can see how amendment No. 128 does that. As the Minister was speaking, I was thinking that I should have tabled an amendment to remove subsection 8(b), which says ''when directed to do so by the Secretary of State''. 
 If I sought to remove that, the Minister's argument would be correct. Such an amendment would restrict the Secretary of State. However, amendment No. 128 does not do that. It leaves alone the Secretary of 
 State's power to direct, so the argument about restriction is spurious. All the amendment would do is add another condition to provide that there must be a point at which the investigation starts again. 
 The Minister made one fair point. I am prepared to accept that the amendment's wording means that a local authority could drag its feet and say that it would not start an investigation until five years had passed. That is a perfectly acceptable objection, but I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I am but an Opposition Member who has to do his level best without the resources of government. The Minister can only say that he has consulted the thousands of experts who surround and support him, that the Member for Spelthorne is on to a good idea in principle, and that the Government have a form of words that will help to speed up the process, but that because the detail is wrong, the principle need not be considered. 
 It is interesting that the Minister said that he thought on reflection that the plans should be kept under constant review. In that case, why does the clause not say so? Instead of saying that the review must take place at such time as the authority considers appropriate, it should jolly well say that the matter must be kept under constant review. If the Minister does not say now that he is prepared to table an amendment to that effect on Report, he will not be surprised to discover that we will table one for him. If we do, I sincerely hope that, having said that it is a good idea, the Minister and his hon. Friends will vote for the amendment.

David Amess: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to withdraw his amendment?

David Wilshire: You can tell why I am in the Whips Office and not on the Front Bench, Mr. Amess. Much as I would love to press the amendment to a Division, we have explored it and I have explained that there will be an avenue for returning to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Beresford: I wish to register a protest at this point. There is much in the Bill to protest about at various other points, but as I have said, the guillotine will prevent us from doing so. This clause, however, emphasises some things that I am deeply concerned about.
 When the consultation paper was announced with great fanfare, Lord Falconer spoke to the all-party Back-Bench Committee that is interested in these matters, and he gave a fascinating display. He started by saying that he had been a Minister with responsibility for planning for six weeks and that he fully understood planning. I will not describe the reaction of ex-planning Ministers and others present, except to say that they smiled gently. Lord Falconer said that he would speed up procedures, and a number of ex-Ministers wished him the best of luck—we are beginning to see why there is a difficulty. 
 The Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee was then involved, and we had a fascinating time. Perhaps one of the most fascinating mornings was when a Minister from the Welsh Assembly appeared before it to explain her position. To my amazement, I found that I very much agreed with what she said, which was about employing a light touch, changing a little but not much and essentially leaving things as they were and moving ahead. 
 As the Welsh Minister went out the door, Lord Falconer came in, and he said that there should be a complete change, everything had to be turned upside down and a new scheme had to be introduced. The clause is an example of that, but it will not speed procedures up; it will slow them down. 
 Worse than that is the over-the-top central direction to local government. I always feel that the term ''local government'' is out of date: it might be local, but it is no longer government. People are dictated to from above. The Secretary of State essentially directs the local planning authority on what documents it has to produce, the subject matter, the geographical area and the timetable for preparation and review. He does not have his own timetable. Included in those documents are the local development documents, to which the clause alludes. 
 The crunch comes at clause 22. It means that local councillors, having been elected by the local people, sit on the local planning committee, which puts these things together and submits them to the mayor. However, in many instances, the mayor will be diametrically opposed to the local authorities. If we continue with what is in clause 14(3)(c), there will be a central diktat to each of the local authorities, but we are already seeing examples of difficulties in this respect. Some London boroughs are deeply concerned about the prospect of the present Mayor of London using the clause to impose a diktat on their local plan. First and foremost in that respect is the problem of tall buildings. As I mentioned on Tuesday, some London boroughs accept the need for clusters of tall buildings in their areas; others, for good reason, do not. We face the possibility that the Mayor of London—and perhaps, elsewhere, the Secretary of State through the individual civil servant referred to in the provision—will directly dictate to the local authority, overriding the wishes of voters who have elected their councils, some of which have been of the same political complexion for some time. 
 The Secretary of State can intervene when the scheme is submitted and perhaps again annually when it has to be monitored, but we do not know what will happen then. The Minister has not dealt with any of the local authorities' difficulties: he has not helped them with the timetable; he has not explained how the procedures will develop; he has not advised whether they will receive a light or heavy touch; he has not clarified how much detail is expected. They are deeply concerned, which only contributes to further delays. 
 As I asked earlier, how will the Secretary of State manage it all? Under the clause, hundreds of documents will be sent to him regularly and 
 monitored annually. Unless his Department is vastly increased, he is unlikely to do a decent job. I suspect that he does not even have the democratic right to do so? 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned the significance of different Ministers. With me as Minister, it would be a light touch, with a few exceptions. It will inspire the Minister to go over some of the aggro of the past when I point out that we are debating his Bill. What worries me is that certain Ministers—perhaps a Transport Minister—could be involved. Transport in this country is in a shambles, but the Secretary of State responsible for many of the changes was the one who will be the Secretary of State if he is still there before clause 14 comes into force—[Interruption.] I shall bring myself back into order, Mr. Amess. 
 The clause highlights a constant theme throughout the Bill—central control, central dictation, and central delay. The element of dictatorship reminds me of countries that believed in five-year plans and five-year leaps forward. Why is it that what is good enough for Wales is not good enough for England?

Sydney Chapman: Clause 14 introduces the development schemes and development documents that replace the unitary development plans and local plans of existing local planning authorities. I appreciate that local development schemes will draw on the Secretary of State's guidance, regional spatial strategies and the required survey of areas under clauses 12 and 13.
 Two points have not yet been covered. First, local development documents should include design guides for some sites of local or strategic significance. When I read the Green Paper many moons ago, much was made of action plans, which were intended to make provision for detailed design briefs. Action plans seem to have been dropped . I do not know why, but I would appreciate the Minister's assurance that detailed design briefs are to be encouraged in at least some local development schemes. 
 The Minister saw fit to ensure, with his majority behind him, that all the amendments we tabled to clause 14 were rejected. That is the nature of democracy, and I cannot quarrel with that. However, I believe that, wherever practicable, putting time into the requirements both on local planning authorities and the Secretary of State is a good thing. I would be reassured if the Minister, in his reply, could give an undertaking that the guidance notes that he and his successors will publish from time to time will advise and recommend time scales that should be strictly adhered to. 
 I do not apologise for reiterating the fact that the main objective of the legislation is to speed up the planning process. I have to judge this clause on whether it achieves the simplification of the proposed plan-making regime. My own judgment is that it will do nothing to simplify, speed up or improve that regime, compared with the existing regime of local planning authorities, unitary development plans and local plans.

Tony McNulty: The entire purpose of clause 14 is to set down the needs and requirements for development of the local development scheme.
 When the hon. Member for Spelthorne characterised the arguments on this and the previous clause he left out one key detail. He summarised what I had said as being that there were some good ideas in what the Opposition were saying, but that the details were wrong, so hon. Members should vote against the amendments. The key element that he missed out was that I said that the amendments were unnecessary because, in essence, although perhaps not in the areas that the hon. Gentleman wanted, their important elements were already in the Bill or will be in subsequent regulations. I shall not make a habit of correcting the wilful and daily misinterpretation by the Opposition of what I have said, but I thought that I should on this occasion. 
 The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is right that the clause is important with regard to the local development scheme and all that flows from it. We believe that it will improve transparency, and that people will see for the first time what documents must be prepared and what the timetables are. It is not just about speed. Certainly, area action plans and elements such as design can be incorporated into the local development documents as outlined, but the scheme that we will discuss subsequently revolves around the local development scheme, its extent, and what is and is not in the development plan. 
 I was intrigued by much of what the hon. Member for Mole Valley said. His speech seemed to me, without my beginning to cast doubt on your role as Chairman, Mr. Amess, to wander very close to being out of order at various stages, and to consist mostly of chasing shadows. If any of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in London local government fear that the Mayor will determine their local development schemes by some sort of diktat, they need not worry. The Mayor has no role in determining the substance or integrity of the local development schemes of London boroughs, and there is no intention that he should. Local development schemes are key to what we are trying to do at the crucial local level to complement what we do at regional level. In that context, for obvious reasons, clause 14 is a crucial part of the Bill. I commend it to the Committee, and ask that it stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Minerals and waste development scheme

Paul Beresford: I beg to move amendment No.88, in
clause 15, page 9, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) The minerals and waste development scheme must have regard to—
(a) making prudent use of natural resources;
(b) the objective of reducing demand for natural resource usage through the promotion of a pattern of land use which is strategically efficient in its use of aggregates;
(c) the requirement for an environmental capacity assessment;
(d) carrying out, every four years, a regional level review of quantities of regional supplies and their distribution, taking into account the rate of recycling and secondary material, progress with demand management and environmental capacity.'. 
I can be fairly succinct on this amendment, as it is clear and straightforward. It is a probing amendment to find out whether the Government take their own words on environmental issues and interests to heart. 
 The amendment revives memories of the aggro that I used to have as a planning Minister when the difficult task of mineral extraction came before Ministers, frequently after a ding-dong battle between those who wished to extract and those who did not, with the local authorities in the middle. There was a change in the 1990s when some mineral extraction, particularly coal extraction, was rationalised, but we need to go a little further. The Council for the Preservation of Rural England has made some sensible suggestions that explore whether the Minister takes the environment realistically. 
 The problem with minerals is that, to state the obvious, they are where they are. When they are discovered and need to be extracted, one must take into account the positive and negative aspects. Nowadays we must also include the environmental aspect. We have an opportunity to use the planning system to encourage the trend, which is supported by all sides, towards realising the impact that digging huge holes, particularly opencast holes, for sand, coal and various minerals, has on the environment and people. We must also rationalise the thinking that goes with that and force local authorities at least to think about it, to assess the situation and to recognise that the planning system can be used to encourage recycling. 
 Recycling has improved dramatically over the past few years, particularly in the private sector, which has recognised the way the nation and the world are going. It has recognised the environmental benefits, and some startling changes have taken place. I think with some amusement of firms that are now sintering sewage sludge so that it can be used on the roads. Other firms not too far from here have laboratories looking into recycling the rubbish scraped off roads when they are to be relaid. To reflect those changes in a planning Bill would considerably enforce that trend, which would follow the line that the Government have taken. 
 The point of the amendment is to ask the Government what they intend to do and whether they will include anything in planning legislation to ensure that that trend, which we all support, will continue.

Matthew Green: I too support to the principle of the amendment. It is an interesting test of the Government's intent. Are they serious about the concept of sustainable use of resources? The crucial line in the amendment is
''a) making prudent use of natural resources''.
 Do they accept that we must minimise the use of minerals as much as possible? That is broadly in line with the Government's intentions in the rural White Paper to move away from the predict-and-provide approach to minerals planning. 
 I suspect that the Minister will say once again that there is some good in the amendment, but absolutely no need for it, as he has done so many times. Once again, he will say that the Opposition parties are being pedantic and should have spotted the provisions in the clause anyway. However, examining clause 15, I cannot see anything that would ensure a prudent use of natural resources. 
 Some of the more overarching elements of the Bill need to be more sharply defined, especially those concerning minerals and waste. They are one of the aspects of local planning that creates the most antagonism. Committee members have probably been faced with objectors when proposals for waste sites or mineral extraction sites have been put forward. The amendment would ensure that when proposals are brought forward that is done in a rational way that will help to reduce the impact of such schemes on local communities in the long term. I wait with bated breath to hear the Minister's explanation of why the provisions are entirely unnecessary and covered already, despite our having no evidence of that.

Sydney Chapman: I put my name to the amendment, which would add an additional subsection to clause 15, with enthusiasm. It has been inspired by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and I pay compliment to that prestigious organisation.
 The amendment would ensure that minerals and waste development schemes conform to the key sustainable development principle of the prudent use of natural resources. I am not exaggerating when I say that one of the most vital issues that our country, and the world, has to face is the urgent need for the promotion of sustainable development policies. I put it on record, in case it is thought to be an interest that should be declared, that I have the privilege of being the chairman of the 44-nation Council of Europe's committee on sustainable development. 
 Our earth has a fragile eco-system, which we are abusing terribly. Instead of living off the interest of our land, we are taking resources from it at too great a rate, and diminishing the remaining resources. Unless we take urgent action, we will rightly be seen as the curse of future generations. For too long, minerals 
 planning has been based on a predict-and-provide strategy. As the CPRE reminds us, we have to reverse that and ensure that we mine only aggregates that we need when there is no other alternative. That may be a rather high-falutin aspiration but it ought to be said because we will have to examine the issue time and again. 
 The amendment would set out in statute the objective of prudent use. Incidentally, I do hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, even if he feels it necessary to make slight adjustments to it. It would fulfil the stated policy of the Government. The prudent use of natural resources is one of the four key elements of sustainable development as defined in the national sustainable development strategy ''A better quality of life''. It embodies the Government's objective of doing more with less. I hasten to add that that is the strategy of the Department of Trade and Industry and not of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least not at present. The amendment is in line with the Government's commitment in their rural White Paper to move away from a predict-and-provide approach to minerals planning. I pay tribute to the CPRE. This is one of the most crucial amendments and if it were incorporated in the Bill, it would be to the Government's eternal credit.

David Wilshire: A couple of points in the amendment are relevant to my constituency duties. God, in his wisdom, put Spelthorne slap on the top of a huge supply of gravel and much as we would like the gravel to be moved elsewhere to stop us suffering from it, no one can decide how to do it. I fully support the general points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley and for Chipping Barnet, but I want to take things a little further and explore some difficulties that arise whatever approach is taken to mineral extraction.
 Paragraph (a) refers to 
''making prudent use of natural resources''.
 I wholly accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said about prudent use being the driving force, but up until now there has been pressure—not wholly unacceptable from a constituency point of view—to say that there is a dilemma over the maximum extraction of a resource in a particular place and the time that that will take. We should not overlook that. If one takes a deposit of gravel and works it right through to the bitter end, there is always a danger that it will go on for so long that the local people who have to suffer the inconvenience will say, ''Hang on, this is taking too long.'' 
 We should not rush towards prudent use as the only consideration. I readily accept that it may need to be the primary consideration, but there is a danger in thinking only about prudent use and overlooking the fact that that could create additional problems for nearby residents. In going down this route, we should not overlook the local people, who might, on the face of it, appear to be the very people who would be in favour of prudent use and maximum extraction from the site. I agree that there is also a danger, whether we are talking about coal mines or gravel pits, of saying 
 that it is easy to extract two thirds, but difficult and lengthy to extract the rest, so we will ignore it. That is not prudent use. However, stretching the process out over a longer period would cause other problems, which need to be taken into account. 
 Paragraph (c) mentions 
''the requirement for an environmental capacity assessment''.
 From a CPRE perspective, I understand only too well what that is driving at, but I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the amendment mentions only an ''environmental capacity assessment''. I want to focus for a moment on the built environment; it is easy to perceive it as the natural environment for spoiling the countryside, but when one is considering gravel workings in a constituency such as mine, one needs to make an assessment about the ability of the built environment to cope with what is being proposed. 
 One of the biggest problems that I have, and I know that other Members have the same difficulty, is that the strategic, regional or local plans for the best use of mineral resources state that resources must be taken from a certain place. That becomes policy and is usually used in planning inquiries when there is hostility. People say, ''This is the county plan that says that this must happen.'' The built environment—I am thinking in particular about roads in villages—is sometimes incapable of handling the situation, yet there is no strategic plan that says, ''We want to work these resources, but they may not be worked until such time as the following improvements have been made to the infrastructure.'' Plans also tend not to say, ''and we will make the resources available for that to happen.'' 
 As long as the debate on the amendment acknowledges the tension between prudent use and the length of time that that will take, and also that environmental capacity must encompass the built as well as the natural environment, the amendment undoubtedly has my support.

Tony McNulty: At times when I listen to Opposition Members I wonder why they do not arrange at some point to continue the sitting without me. One stands up, gives his view and tells me what my view is, and then another stands up, pushes his view and tells me how I will respond to his points.

Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for the best suggestion that we have had all day.

Tony McNulty: So long as the Government prevail in the votes, I am happy whether or not I am here.
 Much of what the Opposition have said is very interesting and very serious but completely irrelevant in the context of the clause, which is not about policy matters on minerals and waste but solely about the documents that local planning authorities will prepare and the timetables for preparing them. 
 The amendment seeks to draw together on the convenient hook of clause 15, sometimes with a weakening of the present position, everything that has occurred anyway, by and large, through other processes of government. That is all very important 
 but subject to a good deal of debate, at least in the environmental lobby. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of the amendment are not the definitive description of how to do what needs to be done about mineral and waste development schemes—the paucity of policy is startling.

Sydney Chapman: I am astounded by the Minister's comments. The amendment is additional, or supplementary to clause 15(1). I take his point that the Bill sets out the framework and that we are giving the detail, but the first 14 clauses are littered with statements that a local authority or a regional body is required to do something that will include other somethings. The amendment exactly conforms to that pattern. It is not that we are trying to write the policy. We are simply widening the strategy by saying what the requirements are.

Tony McNulty: That is not the case. The amendment is far more specific than that, with a weight of policy on minerals and waste that I contend would ultimately be detrimental.

Paul Beresford: The Minister said that we put the amendment on the hook of clause 15, but I remind him that I said it was a probing amendment. I would like to know, perhaps contrary to my hon. Friend's approach, how the Minister would use the planning system instead. This probing amendment asks how the Government will fulfil the intent of their written words.

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman will know from previous debates, the entire Bill is permeated with the need to take very seriously the sustainable environment thrust from which we started. Subsequently, we have come up with very detailed, technical, green and environmentally and ecologically friendly guidance on minerals and waste. Paragraphs (a) to (d) do not begin to capture the essence or detail of that guidance.
 As I mentioned previously, we are trying desperately to ensure, under a broadly strategic and overarching view, that PPGs become PPPs, but the present draft guidance on waste and minerals is very long, and rightly so, because it is an enormously complex subject, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne said. It cannot be melted down to four little catch phrases about prudent use of natural resources, and whatever else. 
 In essence, too much of what we are doing is outwith the Bill and outwith the planning system. With the aggregates levy, which was introduced in April 2002, we are trying explicitly to encourage economy in the specification and use of aggregates, discourage the waste of aggregates on construction and encourage greater use of recycled and secondary materials as alternatives to newly dug aggregate. Nothing added to the clause will change that; it is already the Government's avowed position. It is a fiscal tool, a mechanism, and it does not belong anywhere near a Bill on planning. 
 Paragraph (c) is about the requirement for an environmental capacity assessment. That is not a generic term but a specific term about a particular technique for assessing environmental impact.

Paul Beresford: I recognise that there may be flaws in the amendment, but the purpose behind it relates to subsection (3)(a), which states:
''references to a local development scheme include references to a minerals and waste development scheme''.
 What we are trying to get across to the Minister is that the Bill should include something to drive home to those putting the scheme together the appropriate environmental approach. It does not have to be this amendment, but something ought to be included in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: That will be driven home by clause 38 and everything that underpins part 1, because every document germane to the development plan will have to go through the rigours of the sustainable appraisal framework—everything, not only a little bit of it. Not only the waste and minerals scheme, but every single document that is germane to planning will have to go through that process. That will be made explicit in PPG12 and elsewhere.

Huw Edwards: What reassurance can my hon. Friend give my constituents, who are concerned about the designation of 29 sand and gravel sites in the constituency, all of which are in a special landscape area, which are proposed as an alternative to dredging in the Bristol channel? I hope that my hon. Friend can give some assurance that the Bill will have a greater presumption against the exploitation of such reserves in special landscape areas.

Tony McNulty: Given the new PPG says on minerals and aggregates, the aggregates levy, and the environmental dimensions and sustainability element being rooted throughout the new planning system, that broad assurance can be given. Prudent use and those other elements that hon. Members have rightly mentioned are all important. They will permeate the overall approach of the Bill, not simply the minerals and waste dimension. It is wholly inappropriate for people to start picking elements—for instance, to pick a favoured policy approach to minerals and waste—and hook it on to a clause. The clause merely determines that there will be mineral and waste strategies, and that county councils must prepare documents along such and such a timetable.
 It is not, as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet suggested, that we have taken that approach until now. We have not been explicit in the Bill about policy matters that more appropriately belong in PPGs or guidance. I will not have the charge laid at my door that, because we do not go along with this particular approach and that particular set of new clauses for this aspect of minerals and waste, we are somehow against sustainable development, against prudent mineral and waste strategies, or any other such jibes. They could not be further from the truth, given where we started. Sustainability is writ large, and it underwrites everything in the Bill—including clause 15.

Sydney Chapman: I do not impugn anything base to the Minister. I hope that he is assured about that. I am staggered that he feels that we are going outside the spirit or necessity of the Bill. We all want to keep it as simple as possible. I give one example.
 Clause 5, on the regional spatial strategy revisions, begins:
''The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS''.
 Clause 5(3) continues: 
''In preparing a draft revision the RPB must have regard to''
 certain factors. Clause 15 is about minerals and waste development schemes. It is not as though we are taking something new and trying to transplant it artificially into the clause. The amendment would add to subsection (1): 
''The minerals and waste development scheme must have regard to''
 the four items that we have listed. That is exactly the same as what is proposed in clause 5 and in other clauses.

Tony McNulty: With the greatest of respect, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case at all. If he had read on in clause 5, he would have discovered that it covers national policies and advice contained in guidance, the regional spatial strategy for each adjoining region, the spatial development strategy if any part of its region adjoins Greater London, and the Welsh spatial plan. There is nothing about specific policies or specific techniques to determine and assess policy as he suggested.
 As I said before, an environmental capacity assessment, as alluded to in proposed new subsection (1)(c), is not a generic term for the assessment of the capacity of something in an environment: it is a scientific tool of assessment. Including it in the Bill would be like saying, ''No other technique will do—just this one.'' That is as inappropriate as saying, ''This aspect of policy is important to us, but not the lot.'' That would ultimately weaken the ability to do what is desired on minerals and waste strategy, rather than strengthen it. In the legal context, such elements and such a technique as is detailed in proposed new subsection (1)(c) will quite rightly prevail when the matter comes up in any study of an application, rather than elements of guidance or another approach. The amendment is a false clause that would weaken the position on minerals and waste, not enhance it. Clauses 5 and 15 do not bear comparison.

David Wilshire: However much the Minister wants to huff and puff, there are a couple of simple facts that he ought to bear in mind. First, the amendment is in order, otherwise it would not be on the amendment paper. Secondly, everything that the Opposition have said has been in order, otherwise, Mr. Amess, you would have ruled us out of order. The debate is perfectly legitimate. The issues of prudent use and environmental capacity are up for discussion. We and the public are fully entitled to draw the conclusion from the Minister's refusal to join in the debate that he could not care less about the issue.

Tony McNulty: I am not sure that that is worthy of any response at all. It was a bit half-hearted and not terribly clever. I have engaged fully with the debate, and have not at any stage alleged that what the Opposition said was out of order—just that it would be entirely inappropriate to introduce specifics on policy in a clause that details processes and structure—
Mr. Wilshire rose—

Tony McNulty: No. I gave him the last one. The hon. Gentleman can rest for a bit.
 The clause is about process and structure, not about specific policy. Specific policies, evaluative techniques and aspects of environmental assessment are not mentioned in clause 5. The amendment would be wrong in that regard, and would not at all help to effect significantly a ecologically sound waste and mineral strategies. I do not broadly disagree with anything that the hon. Member for Spelthorne said on the substance of those policies. Before he gets on his toes, I say in passing that, if the hon. Member for Mole Valley had as much concern for green and environmental issues now as when he was in a position to do something about them, we might not be where we are now. 
 I have no difficulty with the substance of the policies that people talk about. We are making legislation. The amendment is inappropriate. Much of what it contains—I am sorry to satisfy the hon. Member for Ludlow—is either the Government's policy already, such as the aggregates levy, or will be alluded to succinctly through policy guidance. The amendment is unnecessary and, I think, a tad unusual, in the sense that it is wasting the Committee's time. The amendment does nothing to add to the mineral and waste strategy schemes that county councils need, how they do them, what documents they should provide, and what the timetable should be. That is all that the clause is about.

Paul Beresford: I shall ignore the dig into the past because it is clear that the Minister has not looked into the past. If he had, he would not have said what he said.
 I began by pointing out that this was a probing amendment to deal with the concerns on both sides of the House. The Minister has already had questions about 29 potential holes, with more to be discovered in the constituencies of one of his hon. Friends. All of us who represent a rural or mixed constituency share those concerns. We want, and the public want, a reference, perhaps in clause 15(3)(a), that will encourage, bully or cajole county councils into taking a much more local environmental interest. 
 The Minister may be right that some procedures would be inappropriate. However, despite being asked, he has not told us what he will do and why he will not use the Bill at least to open the door.

Tony McNulty: The door is already wide open. Authorities will be required to undertake sustainability appraisals of the proposals in any local development document, minerals and waste included. In part 1, the Government are committed to the implementation of a strategic environmental assessment directive, which was sent to the Committee. The Government have already commissioned research on developing an environmental appraisal of aggregates. The research will be blown out of the water if we can use only an environmental capacity assessment, and that is clear from the Bill.
 The idea of sustainability in the form of regional spatial strategies and local development plans permeates the Bill. The full implementation of the SEA directive and the statutory footing given to sustainability go to the heart of the amendment, which deals with minerals and waste. However, the amendment does not add to our ability to be ecologically sensible or environmentally sensitive on waste and minerals. The amendment merely deals with the documents that need to be prepared and the timetable. If the message of environmental sustainability has not got through to the Committee yet, it will as we proceed. The guidance, our response to the SEA directive, what we mean by sustainable development in clause 38, the full acceptance of the sustainability framework and the appraisal that will underpin everything will send out loudly and clearly a message on waste and minerals and on every planning aspect affecting the environment and ecosystem. That is why we must resist the amendment.

Sydney Chapman: I listened carefully to the Minister and I regret to have to tell him and the Committee that I profoundly disagree with him. I do not wish to prolong this debate, as there may be other matters to discuss in future. I intend to press the amendment because it is fundamentally important. I might slightly disagree with my hon. Friend when he referred to it as a probing amendment. It is a vital issue, and I shall certainly press the Committee to a vote.

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is up to the hon. Member for Mole Valley.

Paul Beresford: Directives are merely direction, and I accept that the amendment may have flaws, as the Minister pointed out. However, the Government have an opportunity to include in the Bill a requirement that gives a real chance to the environmental lobby to impress its opinion on local authorities, particularly on county councils. The two most environmentally difficult areas for planning are waste and mineral extraction, yet there is no mention in clause 15 of the word ''environment''.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7

Question accordingly negatived.

Paul Beresford: I beg to move amendment No.257, in
clause 15, page 9, line 12, leave out 'scheme', and insert 'plan'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 258, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 14, leave out 'scheme', and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 259, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 15, leave out 'scheme', and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 268, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 18, leave out 'documents' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 269, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 25, after 'a' insert 'local'.
 Amendment No. 272, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 34, after 'a', insert 'local'
 Amendment No. 274, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 37, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 275, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 41, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 276, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 43, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 277, in 
clause 23, page 13, line 45, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 278, in 
clause 23, page 14, line 1, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 279, in 
clause 23, page 14, line 3, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 281, in 
clause 24, page 14, line 10, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 283, in 
clause 26, page 14, line 40, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 284, in 
clause 26, page 15, line 4, leave out 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 285, in 
clause 26, page 15, line 5, leave out first 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 Amendment No. 286, in 
clause 26, page 15, line 5, leave out second 'document' and insert 'plan'.
 New clause 7—Local Development Plans— 
'(1) The local planning authority must prepare a plan for their area to be known as a local development plan.
(2) The plan must set out—
(a) the authority's objectives in relation to the development and use of land in their area;
(b) their general policies for the implementation of those objectives.
(3) The plan may also set out specific policies in relation to any part of the area of the authority.
(4) Regulations under this section may prescribe the form and content of the plan.
(5) In preparing a local development plan the authority must have regard to—
(a) current national policies;
(b) the England Spatial Plan;
(c) the RSS for their region and any region which adjoins the area of the authority;
(d) the community strategy prepared by the authority;
(e) the community strategy for any other authority whose area comprises any part of the area of the local planning authority;
(f) the resources likely to be available for implementing the plan;
(g) such other matters as the Secretary of State prescribes.
(6) The authority must also—
(a) carry out an appraisal of the sustainability of the plan;
(b) prepare a report of the findings of the appraisal.
(7) The community strategy is the strategy prepared by an authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c.22).
(8) A plan is a local development plan only in so far as it—
(a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development plan;
(b) is approved by the Secretary of State.'.
 New clause 8—Local Development Plans: preparation requirements— 
'(1) A local development plan must be prepared in accordance with—
(a) the local planning authority's community involvement scheme;
(b) the timetable for the preparation and adoption of the authority's local development plan.'
(2) The authority's community involvement scheme is a statement of the authority's policy as to the involvement in the exercise of the authority's functions under this Part of the persons to which subsection (3) applies.
(3) The persons mentioned in subsection (2)—
(a) must include such persons as the Secretary of State prescribes;
(b) may include such other persons as appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to development in the area of the authority.
(4) The authority and the Secretary of State must attempt to agree the terms of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).
(5) But to the extent that the Secretary of State and the authority cannot agree the terms, the Secretary of State may direct that the documents must be in the terms specified in the direction.
(6) The authority must comply with the direction.
(7) The Secretary of State may prescribe—
(a) the procedure in respect of the preparation of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1);
(b) the form and content of the documents;
(c) the time at which any step in the preparation of the documents must be taken;
(d) publicity about the documents;
(e) making the documents available for inspection by the public;
(f) circumstances in which the requirements of the documents need not be complied with'.
 New clause 9—Independent examination— 
'(1) The local planning authority must submit their local development plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
(2) But the authority must not submit a plan unless—
(a) they have complied with any relevant requirements contained in regulations under this Part, and
(b) they think the plan is ready for independent examination.
(3) The authority must also send to the Secretary of State (in addition to the local development plan) such other documents (or copies of documents) and such information as is prescribed.
(4) The examination must be carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State.
(5) The purpose of the independent examination is to determine in respect of a local development plan—
(a) whether it satisfies the requirements for local development plans and their preparation as set out in this part;
(b) whether it is sound.
(6) Any person who makes representations seeking to change a local development plan must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination.
(7) The person appointed to carry out the examination—
(a) must make recommendations;
(b) give reasons for the recommendations.
(8) The local planning authority must publish the recommendations and the reasons'.
 New clause 10—Intervention by the Secretary of State— 
'(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that a local development plan is unsatisfactory he may at any time before the plan is adopted by the local planning authority direct them to modify the plan in accordance with the direction.
(2) The authority—
(a) must comply with the direction;
(b) must not adopt the plan unless the Secretary of State gives notice that he is satisfied that they have complied with the direction.
(3) At any time before a local development plan is adopted by a local planning authority the Secretary of State may direct that the plan is submitted to him for his approval.
(4) The following apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (3)—
(a) the authority must not take any step in connection with the adoption of the plan until the Secretary of State gives his decision;
(b) if the direction is given before the authority have submitted the plan for independent examination under the requirements of this part the Secretary of State must hold an independent examination and the requirements under this part for independent examinations will apply accordingly;
(c) if the direction is given after the authority have submitted the plan the person appointed to carry out the examination must make his recommendations to the Secretary of State;
(d) the plan has no effect unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish the recommendations made to it by virtue of subsection (4)(b) or (c).
(6) In considering a plan submitted under subsection (3) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter which he thinks is relevant.
(7) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the authority.
(8) The Secretary of State—
(a) may approve subject to specified modifications or reject a plan submitted to him under subsection (3);
(b) must give reasons for his decision under paragraph (a).
(9) In the exercise of any function under this section the Secretary of State must have regard to the local planning authority's community involvement scheme and the timetable for the preparation and adoption of the authority's local development plan.'
 New clause 11—Withdrawal of local development plan— 
'(1) A local planning authority may at any time before a local development plan is adopted under this section withdraw the plan.
(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to a local development plan at any time after the plan has been submitted for independent examination unless—
(a) the person carrying out the examination recommends that the plan is withdrawn and that recommendation is not overruled by a direction given by the Secretary of State, or
(b) the Secretary of State directs that the plan must be withdrawn.'.
 New clause 12—Adoption of local development plan— 
'(1) The local planning authority may adopt a local development plan as originally prepared if the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the plan recommends that the plan as originally prepared is adopted.
(2) The authority may adopt a local development plan with modifications if the person appointed to carry out the independent examination of the plan recommends the modifications.
(3) A plan is adopted for the purposes of this section if it is adopted by resolution of the authority.
(4) But the authority must not adopt a local development plan if the Secretary of State directs them not to do so.'.
 New clause 13—Revocation of local development plan— 
 'The Secretary of State may at any time revoke a local development plan at the request of the local planning authority.'.
 New clause 14—Review of local development plan— 
'(1) A local planning authority must carry out a review of their local development plan at such times as the Secretary of State prescribes. 
 (2) The authority must report to the Secretary of State on the findings of their review. 
 (3) A review must— 
 (a) be in such form as is prescribed; 
 (b) be published in accordance with such requirements as are prescribed.'. 
 New clause 15—Revision of local development plan— 
 '(1) The local planning authority may at any time prepare a revision of a local development plan.
(2) The authority must prepare a revision of a local development plan—
(a) if the Secretary of State directs them to do so;
(b) if, following a review of the local development plan as set out in this Part, they think that the plan should be revised.
(3) This Part applies to the revision of a local development plan as it applies to the preparation of the plan.'.
 New clause 16—Joint local development plans— 
'(1) Two or more local planning authorities may agree to prepare a joint local development plan.
(2) This Part applies for the purposes of the preparation, revision, adoption, withdrawal and revocation of a joint local development plan as it applies for the purposes of the preparation, revision, adoption, withdrawal and revocation of a local development plan.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) anything which must be done by or in relation to a local planning authority in connection with a local development plan must be done by or in relation to each of the authorities mentioned in subsection (1) in connection with a joint local development plan.
(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply if a local planning authority withdraws from an agreement mentioned in subsection (1).
(5) Any step taken in relation to the plan must be treated as a step taken by—
(a) an authority which was a party to the agreement for the purposes of any corresponding plan prepared by them;
(b) two or more other authorities who were parties to the agreement for the purposes of any corresponding joint local development plan.
(6) Any independent examination of a local development plan to which the agreement relates must be suspended.
(7) If before the end of the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection an authority which was a party to the agreement requests the Secretary of State to do so he may direct that—
(a) the examination is resumed in relation to the corresponding plan;
(b) any step taken for the purposes of the suspended examination has effect for the purposes of the resumed examination.
(8) A joint local development plan is a local development plan prepared jointly by two or more local planning authorities.'.

Paul Beresford: I felt rather stunned when I was asked to take on the job of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and I saw this large group of amendments. If I wanted to delay the Committee, this would be my opportunity, because I could go through each amendment blow by blow.
 It is interesting that the provisions come in clause 15, but I will not question whether that is appropriate, because I would get into severe trouble. That aside, the crux of what we are saying is the same as for clause 14—the Bill will impose an enormously centralised, dictatorial system on local authorities. 
 Opposition Members gave a faint murmur from a sedentary position when I asked why certain provisions were good enough for Wales, but not for England. As I suggested, that may partly be down to the fact that the Welsh Minister responsible for such issues made it clear to the Select Committee that appropriate changes could be made there. That is the crux of what we saying in the amendments. 
 The Select Committee listened to Lord Falconer, but also to many other, deeply concerned people. We had a rather flamboyant presentation by the Confederation of British Industry, which slid backwards later on. It would be fair to say, however, that support for the Government was lacking and that the Select Committee report was damning. 
 No account seems to have been taken of that. Subtle changes have been made to the proposals, and one or two members of the Select Committee are a little happier—indeed, one of them got his plans. What the country will get, however, is the imposition of enormously complex central control. It does not need that, and nor do house-building or developmental control. 
 We therefore decided that it would be appropriate to table the amendments, and we were assisted by representatives of the Town and Country Planning Association. If anyone should know what it is like out there, it should. It said that the aim of the amendments is to replace the somewhat cumbersome and confusing system of local development schemes, frameworks and documents with a simple local development plan for each local authority. That would be clear and sensible. The member of the Committee from Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth, has his head in his hands because he knows that that is a fact. Of course, he will have to be bullied into supporting us, or he will have to leave the Room when the time comes. He knows the truth of the matter. When he returns to his 
 constituency, his local authority—as the local planning authority—will have a simple and straightforward system. I may want to tweak some aspects later, but the essence of the amendments is that things should be much less complicated. There should be much less interference and much less control, and procedures should be more democratic than they will be in England. 
 At the end of the day, when everyone in the local democracy has voted for their councillors, the councillors have sat on the Committee and come up with various stipulations, papers and plans whose complexity is quite remarkable—even more remarkable is the fact that the references in the Bill and the explanatory notes do not always correlate, but I shall leave that aside—and those plans have been submitted to the Secretary of State, the final decision will then be made by a civil servant or inspector. He might never have visited the area. He might know nothing about it, but he will make the decision, and that decision will be binding on the local democracy. I find that quite remarkable. 
 The Government have said as flamboyantly as the CBI—Lord Falconer was very proud to say this—that they want to achieve simplicity in planning and remove various layers so that the planning system can move forward faster. However, they have done the opposite. The Bill risks replacing structural plans with a whole range of unheard-of documents, schemes, frameworks and plans. Some are in the Bill and some are referred to in the explanatory notes, so I presume that we will find those later. 
 The proposal for a new set of documents to replace the widely understood concept of a local plan has not come from the people out there who have to carry plans out. It has not come from the people out there who have to conform to them. It has come from someone in the bureaucracy here, supported by Ministers—or perhaps, the other way round, a Minister has asked the Department's bureaucracy to produce it—who shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of what is going to happen and of what life is like out there. The Minister continually says that the process will be speeded up and that there will be timetables. He will not set timetables for himself, but he will set them for local authorities. He is actually impeding the system and delaying everything. 
 The scheme as put forward has been widely criticised. We have seen that in the Committee and in various journals. The amendment, supported by the Town and Country Planning Association, represents the feeling of more than 100 local planning authorities. It is also supported by various individuals and groups with environmental concerns. Perhaps the Minister should reflect on that. It also reflects the feeling of many representatives of firms that are not necessarily part of the TCPA but are deeply concerned that the Government's building targets will not be met, because of the complex system. 
 As I have said, in Wales, this approach has been turned down. Interestingly, the Minister in the Welsh Assembly is a professional planner, so possibly knows a little about it. The amendment would introduce a simple system, one that the Government support for 
 Wales. Why can they not support it for England? I know that the language is different. I have enough trouble with English, let alone with Welsh, but apart from that, the differences are not such that the simple system that Wales will have cannot be utilised for the benefit of the building that the Government want to take place in England.

Matthew Green: I find myself in broad agreement with the thrust of the amendments. There are details to which I would not subscribe, such as the idea of an England spatial strategy, but in broad essence, I agree with their thrust.
 This is one of the more critical moments for the Committee. The Bill's whole purpose is at stake. Why have the Government introduced a planning Bill? They say that it is to speed up the planning process and make it work better, but what will it achieve? I think that it will have two different results. In Wales, there is a degree of consensus that the proposals for Wales are broadly good. Numerous organisations have beaten a path to my door to talk about parts of the Bill, but none has been from Wales because Welsh organisations are broadly happy with the Welsh component of the Bill. However, the opposite view is held with regard to the parts pertaining to England. 
 If planning is to work, it must be easily understood by the public and by companies. The current system is not perfect, but it is broadly understood by firms and the public. One can apply a test to the Bill, which is to hand it to all our colleagues in the House and say ''When someone comes in to your next surgery with a planning problem, as they invariably do, explain the new system to them.'' I suspect that many of our colleagues would run a mile rather than try to do that. 
 The Bill adds complexity to the planning system. It may slow the system down, contrary to the Government's intentions. They are tossing everything in the air and producing a new set of terms and acronyms, so it will be a considerable time before councillors and planners, as well as the public, can get their heads round all the changes. What is the point of change if it achieves very little? One of the problems with the Bill is that there is no certainty that it will achieve much. The planning system probably needs some changes. Some changes are needed in Wales, but the Welsh seem to be bringing them about without going to the lengths that are necessary in England. 
 I said that I find some elements of the amendments difficult to support. There are bits that I would object to, but I cannot but support them, because they try to bring the system into line with the one proposed for Wales. Therefore, I hope that Labour Members will see the consensus built around the Welsh proposals and wonder why the Government have not managed to achieve a similar consensus in England. Why have they not managed that? It is because they have produced something completely different. 
 I realise that the Minister might have to eat a little humble pie, but I urge him to talk to his Welsh colleagues and ask them how they have managed to achieve what they have. We should see whether we can incorporate the essence of that in the Bill and make 
 substantial changes on Report that will improve and enhance the current planning system, instead of tossing it all up in the air and reassembling it in a way that makes it difficult for the public and professionals to disentangle it.

Tony McNulty: The amendments get rid of local development documents. It is not for me to dwell on how good or bad the Welsh planning system is, save to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said from a sedentary position, that that is what is called devolution.
 Is it appropriate for the local development office approach to be ripped out of the body of the Bill, as the amendments propose? The answer is no. Hon. Members can dwell for ever on how supposedly over-complex the system is. I accept that we are not helped in that regard by the various acronyms and descriptions in the Bill. I know that hon. Members will giggle at this, but the Bill is not over-complex. As and when the provisions are laid out, the specifics of what is required in the local development frameworks for each English planning authority will be clear. 
 Hon. Members must ask themselves whether they feel that it is more appropriate to delineate exactly what needs to be in the development plan and simply call it a local development plan in the way in which the Welsh propose. I say that the answer is no because this is a matter for England and that is a matter for Wales. There is nothing in the Welsh local development plan that is not in the local development framework and documents for the English system because they will all be broadly the same. There will be one document in the Welsh case and a range of clearly delineated documents in the English case.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister give way?

Tony McNulty: Not at the moment. The elements required under the systems in parts 1 and 2—the sustainability appraisal, the statement of community involvement, the survey and the annual report—are clear. In the main, all the Secretary of State and reserve powers, which have exercised the hon. Gentleman for so long, will be performed, as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will say when we get to part 6, in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales.
 Opposition Members do not do the debate much credit by looking for and seeing complexity when it is not there. I can do that because I can stand up and say, ''You need a local development document and a local development framework, but LDFs are not on the face of the Bill.'' What would LDDs and LDFs do to the integrity of the new system in England apart from delaying, confusing and over-complicating it? As someone with 11 years of experience on a planning committee, I say that when one considers the end result of the system, the approach is not over-burdensome or complex and is not littered with delay. LDDs are part of that process and are central to the local-regional split. The thrust of the amendment is to take out LDDs, which would have consequences for the system. Acronyms and labels will not help or enhance the planning system in England.

Sydney Chapman: I am slightly perplexed because we propose to introduce local development strategies and schemes. I am not going to the barricades, but I think that everyone knows what a plan is. We have had unitary development plans and local plans, and why should we not stick with those words? Will the Minister explain why he uses the words ''schemes'' and ''documents'' when he refers to England but, when he comes to part 6 of the Bill, refers to the Wales spatial plan and uses the word ''plans'' instead of ''schemes'' and ''documents'', which is confusing?

Tony McNulty: With the best will in the world, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an explanation until the starring role on part 6 by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is a very good friend of mine—we are both ex-Whips—and into whose mouth I will not put words. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Welsh matinée, which will appear next Tuesday at some stage or other.
 This is the objection to the amendment: there need to be developed local and regional levels, and such a two-tier system is at the heart of the Bill. We have dealt with the local development scheme, the overall approach, the timetable and how local planning authorities need to get together the assorted portfolio documents that they need. Some local development documents will be rooted in part of the local development plan and some will not. Clearly—this is the heart of the argument—if the amendments prevail, the new two-tier system, which the Government want to introduce on the local-regional split, will not prevail. Take away LDDs, which is the thrust of the amendments, and the system that we want to put in place, which will be speedier, fairer, more responsive and more flexible, will not prevail. I urge the Committee to resist the amendments and to support the clause.

Paul Beresford: I am not surprised. I guess that we all expected the Minister to do this because it was knocking one heck of a hole into his Bill, but it was done with some justification. As I understand it, the Minister is doing tours of an explanatory nature to members of planning committees, or at least to planners and chairmen of planning committees throughout London. I understand that he has had one meeting, and I picked up from those who were there that the initial meeting was more of a ritual me-to-you, Minister-to-audience meeting. The Minister has had little opportunity to have the audience back to him.
 It would have been nice if the Committee stage of the Bill had been delayed. For a change, both Opposition parties have been saying the same thing, probably because we have both received the same reaction from the public and practitioners, and what they are saying is completely contrary to what the Minister is claiming. If he had consulted more widely, he might have got the feeling that we did from the lobby, from people who came to see us and from distraught or bemused local authorities—bemused because they will have imposed on them a complex system that they are convinced is a combination of central dictation and delay. 
 The Minister will not accept the amendments. I understand that, but it will be intriguing to hear his explanations and arguments when we come to the Welsh part of the Bill. If I were mischievous, I might table amendments to try to impose on Wales similar provisions to those that have been imposed on England and listen next week to Under-Secretary of State for Wales explaining to me why that would delay everything, why the practitioners there would not like it and why building in Wales would come to a grinding halt. The hon. Member for Monmouth is barely able to maintain a straight face—he is smiling gently. He knows that in supporting the Minister, he will stymie building in England. I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment. It was tabled to make a point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in
clause 15, page 9, line 20, leave out subsection (a).

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 260, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 20, leave out '16(3)', and insert '16(2)'.
 Amendment No. 130, in 
clause 15, page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (d).

David Wilshire: This is the point at which it becomes clear just how poor my brain is. I tabled the amendments because I simply do not understand what we are doing. I hasten to add that I tabled amendments Nos. 129 and 130 but not amendment No. 260. I have enough trouble getting my mind around my amendments without trying to get my mind around other people's.
 I fully expected the Minister to leap up with glee and say that the hon. Member for Spelthorne simply does not understand. I am prepared for that because he would then have to explain to me what the clause really means. If I understand it correctly, clause 15(3) says that part 2 of the Bill 
''applies to a minerals and waste development scheme''
 but with few exceptions. That much I understand, but amendment No. 129 would delete one of the exceptions, and I am blowed if I can see that it makes sense. The Bill says that part 2 applies to a minerals and waste development scheme, but then goes on to say, in clause 16(3), that it does not require that plan to set out policies relating to the development and use of land in the area. 
 I am puzzled that there is a requirement to set out a minerals and development plan but that it will not apply to development and use of land in the area of the county council. What is the point of saying that it must have a plan that does not apply to the land in the area? It may not mean that, but it would help me, and those who will enforce the Bill after enactment, to know why the plan does not apply. 
 On amendment No. 130, under the clause, part 2 applies to a minerals and waste development scheme, but not to clauses 28 to 30. In other words, if I understand it correctly, it does not apply where there is 
 a joint authority. Clauses 28 to 30 give powers to set up a joint authority, but, for some reason that escapes me, the clause states that the minerals plan is not relevant when clauses 28 to 30 are in effect. So we have a plan for an area, which is not a plan for an area because it is exempted from being one, which does not apply if there is a joint authority. 
 A regional rather than a county approach would benefit minerals planning in south-west Middlesex, where my constituency is, as well as Berkshire and north Surrey. Once the Bill is enacted, people may choose to argue that the most sensible way of using the gravel in that part of England would be to do it jointly. However, if I understand it correctly, clause 15(3) excludes a joint authority. Despite that, if that is right, and despite the fact that something could be done better if it was done jointly, this part of the Bill excludes joint committees. Amendment No. 130 would remove that exclusion of joint committees, although if I have got my knickers in a twist, I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to point it out.

Tony McNulty: It might have been useful if the hon. Gentleman had remembered why he tabled the amendments, because I can see the logic of why he did. I shall try to explain to the rest of the Committee, and if I have missed his logic, perhaps he can explain what his logic was if he can remember it.
 The clause relates to minerals and waste development schemes that are declared and avowed county matters. Only a county deals with minerals and waste. Clause 16 is about local development documents, which refer to local planning authorities and all their responsibilities under the new system, not to county councils. 
 Amendment No. 129 would omit clause 16(3) from the list in clause 15(4). I assumed that the intention was to enable local development documents prepared in accordance with the mineral and waste development scheme to which clause 15 refers to include all policies beyond county matters. I remind the Committee that clause 15 relates only to minerals and development schemes, whereas clause 16 goes beyond that. I assumed that the hon. Gentleman's logic was that if clause 16(3) was removed, the door would be left open for the county to turn its mineral and waste plan into something that might, if we blink, look more like a county structure plan rather than its current specific mineral and waste duties. 
 Amendment No. 130 would require clauses 28 and 30 on joint committees to apply to the minerals and waste development schemes as they do to all other schemes. Again, one could argue that that is inappropriate, given that the scope for joint committees is between local county and region. 
 Amendment No. 260 would omit clause 16(3) from the list in the provisions under clause 15(4) and insert a reference to clause 16(2). It has a different effect. First, it would prevent counties from including other such documents in their mineral and waste development schemes as they think appropriate. Secondly, as with amendment No. 129, the intention appears to broaden the narrowly focused minerals and waste development scheme to include policies that go beyond that. I 
 apologise in advance if my perception was malign and the furthest thing from the mind of the hon. Member for Spelthorne was that these fairly robust wrecking amendments, far from being restricted to minerals and waste, would ensure that the county councils' current position was pretty much reinvented almost by the back door by tacking them on to clause 15. If the hon. Gentleman has remembered what he meant and his intent is not malign, I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

David Wilshire: I am deeply hurt. As if I would seek to wreck something produced by a Government that I hate and want to get rid of. That is the furthest thought from my mind. I had hoped that by claiming ignorance I might slip through the back door something that the Minister did not notice, but he has spotted what the proposal might be about.
 I do not apologise for trying to involve county councils for as long as they exist. Of course they should be involved; we have had that debate before and if I try to reintroduce it you will rule me out of order, Mr. Amess, so I shall refer hon. Members to the Hansard report of these matters. There is still merit in the argument about involving county councils beyond waste and minerals, although the Minister is right to say that amendment No. 129 might open up the possibility for the county council and the two-tier system of local government to become more involved. If the amendment or something like it is not accepted, there is a distinct possibility that waste and mineral plans will be drawn up in isolation from the general considerations and will be impractical because they are not related to other matters. I accept that the amendment would go too far, but the Minister has once again given a reason why the spirit of what is suggested, apart from the malign bits, is right. It is fascinating that time after time the Opposition are told that they can improve the intent of the Bill only for our suggestions to be rejected. This is an unlistening Government as well as one that I would like to get rid of for other reasons. 
 Of course amendment No. 130 would involve county councillors in joint committees where there are two-tier authorities. Why not? What are the Government trying to achieve? Do they lack the courage to say that they hate county councils in a two-tier system and will get rid of them? They are not prepared to say that, but they are prepared so to emasculate them that they become impotent and a waste of time, and in return they hope that we will not notice what they are doing. That is a devious way of doing something; if they believe that it is right to scrub county councils in a two-tier system, let them say so and allow us to debate it, instead of cutting off any responsibility or role that they might have, bit by bit. If they succeed in doing that they will be wasting the taxpayer's money because we shall be sustaining a tier of local government that no longer has anything to do. That is another reason for being honest about the matter. 
 The Minister has rumbled me and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
Sir Paul Beresford rose—

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman may challenge my decision but he will not get anywhere.
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Of course, I accept your ruling, but may I ask whether, when you are minded to think that the amendments have been so thoroughly debated that there is nothing left to be desired by way of stand part debate, you could give an earlier indication? There were one or two matters—it would not have taken more than a minute or two—that I hoped to raise in the stand part debate, and I would have included them during an earlier debate on an amendment had I known. I realise the difficulty, but it would be helpful to have some warning as to how you are minded to act.

David Amess: I entirely accept the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Indeed, it was being discussed quietly in the background. I was somewhat thrown by the procedure surrounding the last amendments. I shall bear it in mind in the future, because I understand that Opposition Members may wish to make further points.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Amess. Should you find yourself in similar circumstances towards the end of the debate on the last set of amendments and you are trying to make up your mind, if the amendments are in my name I shall be willing to speak for longer if that will help you to arrive at a decision. Please let me know.

David Amess: The point is made, but I think that we should move on to clause 16.

Paul Beresford: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
clause 16, page 9, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) a strategic planning statement;
( ) the authority's Local Transport Plan;'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 196, in 
clause 16, page 9, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

Paul Beresford: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I was just trying to catch up on my speed reading. The Committee is progressing well—faster than I had anticipated. Amendment no. 89, like amendment No. 90 to clause 18, reflects environmental concerns. The amendments aim to ensure that local development documents identify and integrate the strategic planning issues in their areas and underpin the role of the land use planning system in protecting and enhancing the quality of the local environment. The
 integration of transport, energy and natural resources objectives is key.
 The LDDs must also be equipped to recognise and protect the tranquillity of the local landscape. The planning system has been the cornerstone of good planning and we feel that it should be strengthened. The replacement of local plans and unitary development plans with local development documents is a critical opportunity to bring in some reasonable, if not radical, improvements. Community involvement—ownership of the process—at local planning level gives the system an opportunity to deliver sustainable development. 
 The view of those who are deeply concerned in such matters—the CPRE is an example, and its thinking has driven the opinions that we are promoting on these Benches—is that local documents should be designed to deliver an integrated approach to strategic planning, particularly to the integration of planning and transport issues; a meaningful opportunity for community involvement, and participation in matters such as parish plans and village design statements. 
 We have already mentioned sustainable management of natural resources, but it does not seem to have made an impression on the Minister, who went to some lengths to say that he was not interested because that was being done elsewhere, and that it was sufficiently uninteresting to be omitted from the Bill. We also believe in the protection and enhancement of the special qualities of the countryside, its character, its tranquillity and—I know this because I live in a street with no lights—the darkness of its night sky. I cannot see the milky way because the southern hemisphere is too far away, but I can nearly imagine it on a dark night, and that is how many people in the countryside like it. 
 The centralisation of planning through the removal of the county and unitary level of strategic planning is likely to create a serious and damaging gulf between local and regional planning strategy decisions. We discussed this at some length—the Minister will deny it, but it is the case. The sheer impracticality of large regions dealing with the detailed scale of individual district councils will also create considerable difficulties. If we had been allowed to enlarge on the matter, either on the last amendments or on stand part, it would have been possible to point out that the disappearance of counties and the introduction of regions amplifies the point that I am trying to make: the local aspect of everything goes away except, of course, the nasty part, and the most contentious issues of waste and mineral extraction are, unsurprisingly, left with the counties. 
 I will return to the amendments before you draw me back to them, Mr. Amess. Where no directly elected regional assembly exists, centralised strategic planning will be in the hands of weird bodies called the RPBs. They have no democratic mandate and, as we have said time and again, it is inappropriate that they should make decisions. One sits in the south-east and sees a south-east organisation that starts at Milton Keynes and sweeps all the way round the south of London, Isle of Man and through to Kent.

David Wilshire: Isle of Wight.

Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

David Wilshire: No.

Paul Beresford: I stand corrected, but I am sure that my geography is basically correct.
 The area is wide and sweeping, almost taking in Wales, stopping just on the edge. The effect is that have unelected people will make decisions about areas that they may never have visited and certainly do not know well. To some degree, we are trying to bridge that gap. It is also of central importance that local development documents have regard to the local authority's transport plan, because transport planning has a major impact on living patterns and the environment, a fact that we can see in Surrey perhaps better than anywhere else. The Government have decided to land about 33,000 extra houses there, and if the local authorities cannot find suitable space for them, the damage to roads, hospitals, the green belt and the general environment will be phenomenal. We need to take that into account. 
 We also want an opportunity for community involvement. The Minister says that there will be such an opportunity, but we want to push that. We also want the opportunity for parish plans and village design statements, particularly in Surrey. I say that because in my constituency alone, there are 30 villages and nearly the same number of parishes, and the local people take them seriously. We see busy people rushing back from London to parish meetings, even if they are being put off by the new rules and regulations that mean that they have to state every penny that they receive in gifts and donations. I apologise if I am sliding a little away from the point, Mr. Amess. 
 The other point that we touched on was sustainable natural resource management and mineral planning, and I was astonished that the Minister took no opportunity to impress and enforce the importance of it by utilising a simple additional amendment. I am sure that we could accept a simple amendment on Report to emphasise that. I know that the Minister represents a London constituency and that he has had 11 years of experience on a planning committee in London. I have also had experience of a planning committee in London, and I grew up in a countryside area where the nearest village, albeit one of two buildings, was three miles away and the nearest town two and a half hours' drive away. When we said that we were bringing in the sheep, we were talking about 7,500 lambing ewes, rather than the 30, 40 or 50 that is often the case in Surrey. However, Surrey has its rural areas, and we need to protect and enhance the countryside and its quality. The drive is to do that through the landscape character assessments.

David Amess: Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to amendments Nos. 89 and 196? I am trying desperately hard to understand how his remarks relate to those amendments. He appears to be going somewhat wide of the mark, so I ask him
 kindly to draw his remarks much more closely to the amendments Nos. 89 and 196.

Paul Beresford: I am sorry, Mr. Amess, if I have used my opportunity to stretch the point a little too far, but I think that those points needed to be made and the opportunity needed to be taken, given that the guillotine will come down later with a crunch. The point has been taken, and I will listen to the Minister's response with interest. If he could reply to the points to which I was allowed to stretch, I would be even more intrigued.

Matthew Green: I shall try to stick exactly to amendments Nos. 89 and 196, although they are an odd pair. I broadly support the principle of amendment No. 89, but find amendment No. 196 slightly confusing.

David Wilshire: Try moving it.

Matthew Green: Yes.
 The problem is that most of us, at least in principle, have at one time or another favoured decisions being taken at the lowest possible level. The amendment would take away from local planning authorities the power to specify other documents that they think are appropriate. I would welcome more decision making at the lowest level. I have touched on the powers of the Secretary of State—perhaps I have gone further, so I shall not stray too far. However, his powers are perhaps too great and need to be moved down to the regions, and perhaps some of the powers prescribed for the regions need to be moved down to local authorities. I cannot support amendment No 196 because it seems to take those powers away. I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne is devastated by that.

David Wilshire: Absolutely.

Matthew Green: I broadly support amendment No. 89, because it attempts to specify some of the things that should be included in the local development document. The local transport plan is important. I can see that the Minister will stand up and ask why we want a two-tier authority. The transport plan is made by the county council and not the district council, which is the body that produces the local development document.

Tony McNulty: Let me say it.

Matthew Green: The Minister wants to say it himself. In broad terms that provides important co-ordination between the plans, and it is possible in single-tier authorities. It would be welcome it the Minister would explain how those plans will intermesh, so that we can ensure that there is no conflict between them.

Sydney Chapman: I shall be as direct as I can. I support amendment No. 89 for two reasons. Subsection (1)(a) states:
''documents of such descriptions as are prescribed'',
 but I am not sure what is going to be prescribed. The Minister may be able to help, but it is essential that there should be at least a strategic planning statement and a local authority transport plan. That is self-evidently why I support the amendment. The Minister 
 may say that those things will be prescribed in any case, but for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I would prefer them to be specifically mentioned in the Bill. 
 I would be prepared to support my hon. Friend on amendment No. 196 if he should press it. It would leave out subsection (2), which would act as a blank cheque, leaving matters to the whim of the local planning authority instead of being specific. The amendments have properly been grouped together, because if subsection (1) were a little more specific and explicit we could drop subsection (2).

David Wilshire: I am in the awkward position of having to start my speech before lunch and remember this afternoon where I had got to. I listened with some care to the comments of the hon. Member for Ludlow on amendment No. 196. For a moment, I thought that
 he had a point. Having reflected on what he said, I am afraid that he may have a reasonable point about the way in which the amendment is worded, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet has brought me back to common sense by saying that the amendment contains a serious point, even if the wording is wrong. As it stands, it is perfectly possible for a local planning authority to run amok and require this, that and the other, way beyond what good common sense suggests. In an earlier debate the Minister expressed alarm at the thought that an authority would take too long. I am afraid—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half past Two o'clock.